It's so funny to read things on one site that's not quite as 'Pro-Apple' as this one, and then turn and read the comments on this site, which are a stark contrast. It's like watching the Democrats and Republicans debate back and forth.

I could care less if Steve Jobs loves Giz... I personally believe they are entirely irrelevant. Maybe you should lose some of your assumptions about others here.

Quote:

Apple may be within their right to go after Giz for this (insider information leaked knowingly is illegal in California), but they might not look too good in the press for being so damn secretive...

I think most people understand and accept the concept of trade secrets.

On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984. 

the DA will respond that the issue is simply receiving stolen property, and what chen/giz did with the info about it after they did that - the journalism part - is irrelevant. a separate civil matter. and so there is no journalist shield applicable here.

of course this is legally arguable. maybe the case will go all the way to the supremes. but look at the scooter libby precedent ... even where is was just pure info about a crime and not the stolen hardware itself, the subpoena was upheld. so good luck with that one, giz.

the DA may also just be looking to find the name of the thief. but taking everything chen has - 99+% of which is unrelated to this theft - rather than focus on searching for that one fact, may run afoul of any judge.

we'll have to see how this progresses. but as others have written, the shi*t sure has hit the fan.

Wow that was pretty fast. Guess money and good lawyers buys speed in these type of cases. Image this was your phone that got taken. There is no way the police would go after someone like Gizmodo for you.

I am surprised that they didn't perform the search early in the morning when they probably would have been home. Would have saved the tax payers a little money on the damage they did.

Normally a Search Warrant has a specific time that the search may occur. When the judge deems a search warrant appropriate, they will validate the search of a specific place, at a certain time, for certain items. This Search Warrant seemed pretty broad.

A good defense lawyer would have a field day with this.

Can we all stop quarterbacking and being fan boys long enough to see what has been left out?

The state (California) is being gregarious where they really have no need to be. Apple did not report the item stolen, therefore they never reported a crime.

They did their part by asking for the prototype back and they received it back.

It is not uncommon for the state (any state) to pursue charges on their own in the stead of the "victim" but in this case they may actually be shooting both themselves and even Apple in the foot.

If this was a controlled leak (nothing at this points says it was not) then both Apple and the police and the states attorney will have both egg on their face, looking like a nazi police gestapo and eating humble pie.

And when that occurs, and if I was Gizmodo and Chen, I would crank up the big litigation machine and hit them where it hurts the most:

IN THE POCKET AND THE PRESS.

Let's face it, would any of you want to be the Judas for their Jesus Phone?

IMO, this is big brother going way too far.
1. They are little rich kids because people like everyone on this forum can't wait to look at what they've found out. Paparazzi and Gizmodo are the same and it's people like everyone here that keeps them in business and demands that "they find out and tell".
2. If the Apple engineer is careless enough to lose his prototype at a bar (of all places), then bad is on Apple for giving it to him in the first place. The phrase "don't drink and drive" should be replaced with "don't drink and carry an iPhone prototype".
3. While I don't know the truth, I certainly can believe that someone calling Apple saying they had someone's iPhone either would never get through or have Apple say they're not interested. Apple has publically declined to assist with helping with lost or stolen iPhones since they first came out. Now their policy has come to bite them in the ass.
4. If the iPhone were actually stolen ad Gizmodo bought it, then they are guilty of buying stolen property. If Gizmodo actually believed it was a found iPhone and not stolen, then I can't imagine that they broke any laws. They returned the iPhone to Apple. If they took a good look in the mean time, then more power to them. I'd like to know what's upcoming - and so would everyone here.

Apple was careless and the real bad guys are the California legal system.

I can see that the usually zombies are all celebrating but lets look at the broader implications here... Do we really want the COPS or FEDS breaking in the doors of people reporting the news simply because they found a story and reported it?

Perhaps Gizmodo should have turned in the device to the police and then in due time bough the same #*%&*( 'stolen' item LEGALLY (since the cops are the ones doing the selling).

This is a very important development. For a while I've thought there has been a legal wrangle developing over what constitutes a journalist and whether or not a blogger can realistically claim to be a journalist, with the associated protections that entails.

It'll be interesting to see how this ends up. It has ramifications way beyond a story about Apple.

While journalists may have some form of immunity because of free speech, they are not exempt from the definition of what is considered the boundaries of legal (or illegal) acts -- as defined by statutes.

For example, a journalist may not aid or abet the perpetuation of an illegal act. The legality of course shall be determined if ever a case ever reached the court. Then, there are ways around this without the acceptance of guilt.

for a brief moment, i thought that it was low for gizmodo to put his name out there too, but by doing so, with all the media, i think giz saved his job for the moment (if he's still employed). his name was going to come out at some point sooner or later.

what was low was disassembling the phone to the world and apple's competitors. that did not have to be public.

More than Karma this is someone in the DA's office and the police department looking to enhance their careers by pursuing a case that is sure to get a lot of national press.

The cops went way over the line here. Was there really any reason to go full Gestapo on this dude's house? Was the public safety really at so much risk that that they couldn't have waited until morning and just knocked on the door? Would they do the same thing if we lost our iPhone?

This story just keeps getting stupider and stupider. From the guy who lost the phone, to the guy who found it, to Gizmodo, to the cops no one has acted with intelligence or integrity. It's a sad tale that tells a lot more about the human condition than just karmic justice.

The burden of proof lies with California to prove that Gizmodo knew the item was stolen and also prove that Gizmodo/Gawker media should not have the same protections and rights that other media companies enjoy.

Much like a police offer can break the speed limit within the course of duty news establishments must be given a little leeway (at times) because their are expected (ethically) to report on a wide dynamic range of news.

For instance if a black book was found containing the mistresses of a prominent Politician by a third party and sold to a media establishment would said Politician have the same recourse? Probably not.

What Gizmodo/Gawker did was borderline unethical but if they are indeed a media organization they be protected under current law.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Good! I'm glad. I think Gizmodo went WAY too far. Really, what did they expect? Half of the posts for the iPhone v4 were their attempt to make themselves look innocent. Why would you need to do that if you were in the first place? Then they kept changing their story in little ways here and there.

Heh. Gizmodo has always been the immature, bratty, potty-mouthed little brother of tech sites. They kept on with that act and strutted smugly around about their juvenile exploit of yanking Apple's tail even after other sites and news outlets started talking about serious civil and criminal repercussions. Well, time to grow up Gizmodo. This ain't high school anymore and the grownups are talking about more then just detention.

Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?

See, my friend, ridiculous hyperbole like that is the problem. Jason Chen isn't Bob Woodward, Jobs isn't Nixon and the iPhone is not Watergate.

First of all, Steve Jobs can no more "influence" the police than he can turn lead into gold. This story has been *everywhere* including lots of mainstream websites. The police couldn't have missed it if they were blind as a bat. No one needed to *influence* anyone.

Secondly, Pravda? Seriously? Are you one of these people who calls someone a Nazi if you disagree with their politics? What an insult to a real, serious situation that millions of Russian suffered under for years.

Gizmodo and Chen are just pseudo-journalists with absolutely no standards who have grown used to having their way because no one cared. This time, finally, they went too far. They paid for stolen merchandise, not just information, an actual, physical object.

They were serving no greater good by exposing some corrupt politician or bringing down a criminal organization. They are just a rinky-dink bunch of posers whose utter lack of morals or ethics has finally caught up with them.

You can't buy stolen merchandise and then say, "Hey look it's a scoop!"

If they're going to reveal names and all, why spill the name of the guy who flubbed up and not the notorious opportunist who fenced it.

That's the name I want to see in print.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mofuu

for a brief moment, i thought that it was low for gizmodo to put his name out there too, but by doing so, with all the media, i think giz saved his job for the moment (if he's still employed). his name was going to come out at some point sooner or later.

Can we all stop quarterbacking and being fan boys long enough to see what has been left out?

The state (California) is being gregarious where they really have no need to be. Apple did not report the item stolen, therefore they never reported a crime.

They did their part by asking for the prototype back and they received it back.

It is not uncommon for the state (any state) to pursue charges on their own in the stead of the "victim" but in this case they may actually be shooting both themselves and even Apple in the foot.

If this was a controlled leak (nothing at this points says it was not) then both Apple and the police and the states attorney will have both egg on their face, looking like a nazi police gestapo and eating humble pie.

And when that occurs, and if I was Gizmodo and Chen, I would crank up the big litigation machine and hit them where it hurts the most:

IN THE POCKET AND THE PRESS.

Let's face it, would any of you want to be the Judas for their Jesus Phone?

And you presented a "very objective summary of events" -- being privy to all the evidence and eyewitness, as they unfolded.

See, my friend, ridiculous hyperbole like that is the problem. Jason Chen isn't Bob Woodward, Jobs isn't Nixon and the iPhone is not Watergate.

First of all, Steve Jobs can no more "influence" the police than he can turn lead into gold. This story has been *everywhere* including lots of mainstream websites. The police couldn't have missed it if they were blind as a bat. No one needed to *influence* anyone.

Secondly, Pravda? Seriously? Are you one of these people who calls someone a Nazi if you disagree with their politics? What an insult to a real, serious situation that millions of Russian suffered under for years.

Gizmodo and Chen are just pseudo-journalists with absolutely no standards who have grown used to having their way because no one cared. This time, finally, they went too far. They paid for stolen merchandise, not just information, an actual, physical object.

They were serving no greater good by exposing some corrupt politician or bringing down a criminal organization. They are just a rinky-dink bunch of posers whose utter lack of morals or ethics has finally caught up with them.

You can't buy stolen merchandise and then say, "Hey look it's a scoop!"

I'm sorry, but I agree with the gentleman you are responding to, but only if it turns out that is what occurred. That is a lot of implication and hyperbole though.

The burden of proof lies with California to prove that Gizmodo knew the item was stolen and also prove that Gizmodo/Gawker media should not have the same protections and rights that other media companies enjoy.

Much like a police offer can break the speed limit within the course of duty news establishments must be given a little leeway (at times) because their are expected (ethically) to report on a wide dynamic range of news.

For instance if a black book was found containing the mistresses of a prominent Politician by a third party and sold to a media establishment would said Politician have the same recourse? Probably not.

What Gizmodo/Gawker did was borderline unethical but if they are indeed a media organization they be protected under current law.

I think there's something about 'compelling public interest' that has to be demonstrated by anyone invoking freedom of the press. We are not talking about the Pentagon Papers here or a madame's black book with senators' names in it.

But I'm no lawyer so I don't put much weight on what I just said. Neither should anyone.

2. If the Apple engineer is careless enough to lose his prototype at a bar (of all places), then bad is on Apple for giving it to him in the first place. The phrase "don't drink and drive" should be replaced with "don't drink and carry an iPhone prototype".

There are many possibilities.

1) the gizmodo editor bought the iPhone prototype without any idea that it was stolen
2) the gizmodo editor knew it was stolen
3) the gizmodo editor stole the iPhone prototype
4) the Apple engineer actually sold gizmodo the iPhone
5) Steve Jobs sold gizmodo the iPhone.

The police needs to get the evidence. Breaking the door might be a bit over the top, but that's probably regular procedure in order to preserve evidence.

Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

This has nothing to do with journalism. It has to do with buying stolen property.

I take your point, but, Gizmodo's defense will be based on them having journalistic protection (i.e. the police should not have been able to take his computers etc. because they were in a "newsroom")

Now, I don't really have an opinion on who is right and wrong here. My basic feeling is that if you have to pay for your story, you are not a journalist, therefore you don't deserve journalistic freedoms, but at the same time, I'm not sure that is the best way to define what a journalist is.

Press freedoms I think are of critical importance in any functioning democracy, and they could come into play here, which makes the whole thing way more important than Apple's latest phone.

Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?

Search warrant was illegal do tell, how is that?

Apple influence the police, are you some sort of conspiracy buff, nut, whatever.....

Clearly, what these people did need to be investigated, and should it be found that this item was stolen, and that they clear.y knew they were purchasing stolen goods, I hope they shut them down, and they all go to the big house to meet bubba! That'll teach em a thing or two!

This is a very important development. For a while I've thought there has been a legal wrangle developing over what constitutes a journalist and whether or not a blogger can realistically claim to be a journalist, with the associated protections that entails.

I take your point, but, Gizmodo's defense will be based on them having journalistic protection (i.e. the police should not have been able to take his computers etc. because they were in a "newsroom")

Now, I don't really have an opinion on who is right and wrong here. My basic feeling is that if you have to pay for your story, you are not a journalist, therefore you don't deserve journalistic freedoms, but at the same time, I'm not sure that is the best way to define what a journalist is.

Press freedoms I think are of critical importance in any functioning democracy, and they could come into play here, which makes the whole thing way more important than Apple's latest phone.

+1

It is certainly a gray area here. You've encapsulated the two main issues that will come to bear and decide the case.

1. Does Gawker Media/Gizmodo have journalistic protection
2. Can it be proven that they knew the item was stolen.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Me, too. If the issue is with potentially doing something illegal then these same people should also hate Apple and boycott their products. Apple has actually lost court case while this Gizmodo case is still mostly speculation.

Personally, I enjoyed seeing the G4 iPhone, don't think it will hurt the stock or company, and outside of that I'm indifferent, though am interested to see what will happen. No Schadenfreude here, but I do like conflict. Conflict is drama is entertainment.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?

So the police are allowed to execute a warrant without the owner being present? An honest question.

Same concern here, as posted above. However, if I remember correctly, there were cases where premises were raided and the evidence gathered was accepted as legally obtained evidence.

Whether the same rationale will apply in this situation is another story. If the law enforcement officers did not do it by the book, to be decided in case the issue ever reach the court, then the evidence may be thrown out -- irregardless of whether the party involved are innocent or guilty.

I can see that the usually zombies are all celebrating but lets look at the broader implications here... Do we really want the COPS or FEDS breaking in the doors of people reporting the news simply because they found a story and reported it?

Perhaps Gizmodo should have turned in the device to the police and then in due time bough the same #*%&*( 'stolen' item LEGALLY (since the cops are the ones doing the selling).

First, there is the issue of a law likely being broken.

Second, given how long it take before police can (or will) sale stuff turned in and not claimed it could have been a long time before Gizmodo got their hands on it it at all (they could have been out bid in the auction)